When 'more' is right in front of you

More is less

Have you heard that a four-day working week is being taken up by more and more Australian (and international) companies?

It’s often called a 100:80:100 model, because employees keep 100% of their salary, work only 80% of the hours, but are expected to produce 100%.

And, guess what?

It works.

A non-profit called?4dayweek?has recently surveyed Australian and New Zealand businesses who’ve done this, mostly successfully. They’re diverse: a mental health support organisation, a marketing consultancy, a surveying business and a property management company are amongst them. Most are small to mid-sized, but Oxfam and Unilever have also trialled the approach for their Australian workers. Even the hardware mega-retailer, Bunnings, is implementing something similar, although theirs is a model where a regular 38 hours are compressed into four working days.

The findings overall are compelling: higher job satisfaction, less stress — and, counter-intuitively, higher productivity.

Yes, the holy grail of ‘more with less’ appears achievable.

Question: How could you implement ‘more is less’ working hours?

The obvious

You think air travel today is annoying (security, legroom, prices!)? Well, you should have seen it before 1970.

While security was non-existent, and legroom was generous, it was even more expensive than today’s eye-watering post-COVID fares. A flight from Australia to the UK in the 1950s cost about $50,000 in today’s dollars, and in the 1960s economy travel cost more than what business class costs today.

But that all changed in the late 60s when William Allen, President of Boeing, essentially bet the company on a request from Pan Am. They wanted an aircraft that would enable them to reduce fares by 30%.

How? It needed to carry 2.5 times as many people as a Boeing 707.

And, famously, Boeing gave them what they wanted.

They created the 747, or Jumbo Jet, with its iconic ‘hump’ that housed a piano bar for the 'upper class’ passengers, and also allowed the nose to open fully to accept large cargo (intended for military use originally).

From a strategic point of view, Boeing made a very big bet, as there were those who believed that the push would not be for?volume?(bigger planes) but for?speed?(hence the Concorde). History of course proved Allen right, with 1500 747s produced during a run of more than 50 years (just 40 remain in service).

But, there’s something quite ordinary about one decision made during the 747’s development. A big quandary was this: “How can we create a cabin big enough for 400-plus people?that is also accessible?”. It was Joe Sutter, the chief designer, who had a thought that was so obvious, that it became the norm for large airliners.

Two aisles.

Think about any wide-body plane you’ve been on: the two-aisle configuration allows fast boarding, rapid service of meals, easy access to bathrooms, and in emergencies, rapid exit. Of thousands of design decisions made, this was one that solved a ‘threshold problem’: one without which the entire project would have foundered.

Treat yourself to some time travel here (and wait for the cigarette scene):

Question: How can you use creativity to come up with an obvious solution to a threshold problem?

Structure or silos?

I stumbled across this page from the first ever ‘Cyclopedia’, published almost 300 years ago (in 1728). Ephraim Chambers wrote 2500 pages as a compendium of all human knowledge. This was his tree diagram, organised in this way for the first time ever.

But, do you notice that it’s STILL the way we organise disciplines or industries?

It’s not precisely the same now: some fields are defunct (fortifications) and others have morphed (chemistry back then was made up of ‘natural magic’ and alchemy!) but at least 75% of this structure still survives - notably in the faculty and departmental structure of universities.

Chambers’ work was revolutionary: it sparked imitators globally and it was an astonishing exercise in categorisation. But, it also created what we suffer today: the silos and the disunity of ‘faculties’. In fact, I’m astonished that some of my clients complain about silo-ism while retaining the term ‘division’ or ‘unit’ as a term within their organisational structure.

Question: How do you?organise?without?silo-ing??

As always, I do appreciate a small signal, or blip, to let me know you’ve enjoyed reading, so consider clicking the 'Like' below.

During the week, take a few minutes to find ‘less is more’ opportunities in your world - and even drop me a line to tell me what you’ve found.

Until next Friday, enjoy the brisk weather if you’re Australian, and the warmth if you’re somewhere northward of me.

Andrew